ramblur Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 That's true.. But then again, without the controversary and huge divide in opinions there wouldn't be much to talk about.. Being midtable in the NPC is like being in the middle of a battleground when it comes to fans.. So many opinions and strategies.. Imagine being on the Man Utd forum.. What the hell would they have to discuss other than the financial part (which probably only interests about 3%), future manager and the obvious need for a new CM.. Other than that? Nothing. Ah, Spaniards 0%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 FFP is a joke, its only come into force because of the emergence of clubs like Manchester City, PSG etc, everyone in favour of FFP is a hippocrit because e.g. If Derby were taken over by a billionaire who invested in the squad no one would me moaning, its just double standards. And if a billionaire wants to loose loads of money on a club in free fall its his problem. I don't like the idea of a levle playing field, it reduces competitiveness. FFP stops clubs being so dominant, or atleast in principal it does. And how on earth is a level playing field less competitive? Surely if the teams are at a similiar level of quality the teams have a better chance of beating the bigger sides in the league and so on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Presumably you support FFP because you hope it will bring em all down to our level.Should drive all fans away and finish football forever.It aint gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Presumably you support FFP because you hope it will bring em all down to our level.Should drive all fans away and finish football forever.It aint gonna happen. Won't be level - its based on turnover and income. Its actually designed to stop clubs like ours suddenly getting billions and gate-crashing the prem party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfc88888 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 FFP is stupid, surely we would be in breach of the rules because we are losing £8 million a year. Anybody could tell you that If a business is losing £8 million a year you aren't running a good business. Now you can either cut spending (We have one of the lowest wage bills in a the league and we can't really reduce it anymore without getting rid of our best players on height eat wages) Its not sustainable losing £8 million and year, and the debt is INCREASING. Not gonig down, so we are ****** unless something changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 FFP is stupid, surely we would be in breach of the rules because we are losing £8 million a year. Anybody could tell you that If a business is losing £8 million a year you aren't running a good business. Now you can either cut spending (We have one of the lowest wage bills in a the league and we can't really reduce it anymore without getting rid of our best players on height eat wages) Its not sustainable losing £8 million and year, and the debt is INCREASING. Not gonig down, so we are ****** unless something changes. Ramblur's explained we'll probably be ok under the FFP. What it means is that we'll not be able to suddenly chuck £50m on players or wages if we got taken over by someone willing to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinkletoes Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 unfortunatley opinions are like ********* everyone has one! just some talk out of theres 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfc88888 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 FFP is stupid, surely we would be in breach of the rules because we are losing £8 million a year. Anybody could tell you that If a business is losing £8 million a year you aren't running a good business. Now you can either cut spending (We have one of the lowest wage bills in a the league and we can't really reduce it anymore without getting rid of our best players on height eat wages) Its not sustainable losing £8 million and year, and the debt is INCREASING. Not gonig down, so we are ****** unless something changes. I wanted to like my own post but I can't, so I'll just quote it instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 FFP is stupid, surely we would be in breach of the rules because we are losing £8 million a year. Anybody could tell you that If a business is losing £8 million a year you aren't running a good business. Now you can either cut spending (We have one of the lowest wage bills in a the league and we can't really reduce it anymore without getting rid of our best players on height eat wages) Its not sustainable losing £8 million and year, and the debt is INCREASING. Not gonig down, so we are ****** unless something changes. For possibly the 85th time, we aren't losing £8m in cash terms. We are losing around £2.5m in FFP terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 For possibly the 85th time, we aren't losing £8m in cash terms. We are losing around £2.5m in FFP terms. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. That's olden not golden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Uttoxeter you are saying what I have posted several times.I hope it doesn't happen.With FFP we will be trapped where we are now.The big clubs with their turnovers will carry on as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 For possibly the 85th time, we aren't losing £8m in cash terms. We are losing around £2.5m in FFP terms. Don't know where you got that figure from,Sage.I make it around double that,though this year looks somewhat better after a wage cull,probably a higher profit on sale of players' regs (mainly due to Savies probably having a small,if any,net book value),and lower interest payable (if the revolving loan has been kept in check and loan capital interest hasn't risen again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Uttoxeter you are saying what I have posted several times.I hope it doesn't happen.With FFP we will be trapped where we are now.The big clubs with their turnovers will carry on as usual. I thought everyone knew that tbh....That's the whole point of it. Manure, Chelsea, City, Arsenal and Liverpool can't afford to be out of the Champions League. Its bad enough one of them missing out with Spurs on their coat tails as well. Their TV money, crowds, sponsors and prize money ensure they will remain top of the heap under FFP. Add to that they will be able to pick up the most promising young players through the EPPP far more cheaply and it will eventually close the door to any newly rich clubs. Anything agreed by the top clubs will be to their benefit. Why would they bring in new rules that could potentially cost them money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I wanted to like my own post but I can't, so I'll just quote it instead Why would you want to like such an ill-informed and patently wrong pile of fewmets? 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Don't know where you got that figure from,Sage.I make it around double that,though this year looks somewhat better after a wage cull,probably a higher profit on sale of players' regs (mainly due to Savies probably having a small,if any,net book value),and lower interest payable (if the revolving loan has been kept in check and loan capital interest hasn't risen again). I thought I was quoting you (from memory) ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I thought I was quoting you (from memory) ha ha As soon as I saw it I thought you might be getting it mixed up with a negative EBITDA figure I gave from 10/11 (so you might have a long memory,even if it's bad!).FFP doesn't relate to a cash loss, because though the paper transaction of fixed asset depreciation is disregarded,another one in the form of amortisation of players' registrations isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 As soon as I saw it I thought you might be getting it mixed up with a negative EBITDA figure I gave from 10/11 (so you might have a long memory,even if it's bad!).FFP doesn't relate to a cash loss, because though the paper transaction of fixed asset depreciation is disregarded,another one in the form of amortisation of players' registrations isn't. I understood your first two lines then my brain melted. That seems to be what I've done. Doh! For the 85th time i'm an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I understood your first two lines then my brain melted. That seems to be what I've done. Doh! For the 85th time i'm an idiot. I know (and fully understand it) many find it hard to get their heads around revenue (operations) expenditure,capital expenditure and the paper transactions that arise,and cash surpluses/deficits.If it weren't for the Revenue,people would understand things more clearly. On the revenue side of things,you'd be able to prepare accounts purely on the basis of cash received and paid out (called a 'receipts and payments' basis).The taxman doesn't like this though,because it gives an uneven tax take and governments would find it hard to judge the effect tax hikes/reductions would have.Companies might not pay bills (or at least not pay much of them) one year,and the next might pay the arrears +current year,so you could see that profit would be overstated the first year,and understated the next. To get round this,the Revenue insist on an 'income and expenditure' basis,which means what was due for the year as opposed to what was received/paid.This gives more even results.It should be noted that only stuff that relates to the year in question is included. Now we go to the capital expenditure side.This basically means stuff that gives value over more than the current accounting period (such as PP.players' regs,equipment etc).Now you could just say 'stuff it' and lump it all in with the rest,but again the Revenue don't like that idea (if you charged the whole expense of PP to one year,you'd have an enormous loss followed by distorted results in subsequent years).To get round this,the idea of dividing the expense over the expected life of the asset was devised (the so called paper transaction).The taxman gives 'capital allowances' to set against tax-in the accounts they're stated as depreciation/amortisation.The thing to note is that these paper transactions bear no relation (in timing or amount,except by almighty fluke) to cash paid out on capital expenditure in any one year. If you feck these transactions back to where they came from,and adjust for movements in creditors/debtors/stock,you've effectively converted the income and expenditure basis to the receipts and payments basis that most would understand more readily.So when I say there was a cash surplus/deficit on operations,I'm really saying that this is what the position would have been on a receipts and payments basis (ie in cash terms only).Rather than looking at the headline profit/loss,you'd probably be better served looking at the cash surplus/deficit position and ask (if it were a surplus) if it can cover debt charges (loan interest paid),and can it then go on to cover some, or all,of the capital expenditure? There are two further complications-interest payable and profit/loss on players' regs sales,which are added/subtracted to the operations profit/loss figure to give the final headline profit/loss figure.Feck both of these out as well.Interest is a bit of a grey area in that it does actually relate to the year in question,but is treated separately to operations.Interest actually paid very rarely equates to interest payable (i.e.due for the year). If you take player sales,even losses usually result in actual cash being received,and as far as profits are concerned,cash received will often be more than the amount of profit stated.Treat the receipts of these (known as 'capital receipts') as a reduction of the capital expenditure you hope to meet from the operations cash surplus (if we ever get one again). I'm sure all of that's cleared your head 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> -don't worry folks,it's the last time I attempt to explain it all.There's no easy way of doing it. I talked about 'capital allowances' and the depreciation/amortisation that appears in the books.You can actually calculate the latter whichever way you like in your accounts,however you have to bring it back into line in respect of the accounts for taxation purposes.Anyone who's read the accounts might have noticed a section where these adjustments are done,and the ones affecting capital allowances v depreciation/amortisation come under 'timing differences'.There's also historical cost depreciation,but I won't go into that unless you really want me to 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> What was the thread title-I've forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I've never thought of myself as a parasite but, my god, you're right. I am not worthy of your presence How did I ever get to this venerable time of my life without ever being uncritical, by blindly swallowing the crap. Oh my god, I'm so sorry. **** off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.